Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 783 posts

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#81

Post by dogleash »

hgsgm wrote: post #37

I don't understand how Missouri and Louisiana have any standing here. 1. They aren't the victims. 2. The individual posters were censored by Facebook et al, not the government, so even they might not have standing. The social networks obviously have standing, but have they complained? "Facebook likes the President" isn't something you should be able to sue the President for.

> I don't understand how Missouri and Louisiana have any standing here.

Did you read their legal complaint? It doesn't feel like your statements here are responding to their claims about standing in the complaint.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#82

Post by viggity »

The Hunter Biden laptop story was actively suppressed on Twitter and Facebook specifically because the FBI told them it was Russian information, despite the fact that the FBI had verified it was legit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#83

Post by edgyquant »

hgsgm wrote: post #29
moduspol wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. They don't, they just choose to do so. It's the same way pundits, authors, and broadcasters often get labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" while similarly left-wing ones don't get labeled. It's an editorial choice to call the reader's attention to it and imply relevance. Beyond t…

After the Senate ran a party-line unpresidented and unconstitutional multi-year campaign to block Obama's nominations from entering office without even a hearing, and then packed the courts with their own judges, it absolutely is relevant who appointed a judge.

In what way was that unconstitutional? It was democrats who changed the rules so they could block judges with a simple majority, not republicans. They did so assuming they’d be the ones in power.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#84

Post by artificialLimbs »

unethical_ban wrote: post #52
shitlord wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the key difference is that White House staffers aren't personally pressuring dang.

They don't feel the need to, because HN mods do their job and there aren't millions of people spreading verifiable misinformation here unchecked.

[citation needed]

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#85

Post by nemo44x »

moduspol wrote: post #25
LatteLazy wrote: post #3

>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and th…

> Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. They don't, they just choose to do so. It's the same way pundits, authors, and broadcasters often get labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" while similarly left-wing ones don't get labeled. It's an editorial choice to call the reader's attention to it and imply relevance. Beyond t…

> They don't, they just choose to do so. It's the same way pundits, authors, and broadcasters often get labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" while similarly left-wing ones don't get labeled.

Which is even weirder when we consider that being "right wing" is considered bad but "left wing" is not. When in reality during the 20th century, far left wing political organizations have been responsible for the deaths of 10's of millions more than far right parties. Being a Nazi is bad but being a Communist is far worse if history is any indicator. But you'd never know it by how much of the media frames things.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#86

Post by merth »

hanniabu wrote: post #60
RobotToaster wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a myth that it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

What about yelling bomb on an airplane

how is that information is useful even if it's true. it's not like you can walk away.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#87

Post by ceejayoz »

hgsgm wrote: post #30
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which direction are you imagining? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request? after all, anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get : e.g. TFG felt comfortable demanding that his political rivals be imprisoned, did he get it?

Who did TFG send his demands to? His rally crowds have no power to act, and consented, so there is no coercion.

> His rally crowds have no power to act

Jan 6 would like a word. (There's every indication Trump was internally pressuring as President, too, not just via rallies as candidate. https://apnews.com/article/060ca2399a744b4a9554dbd2ec276a90)

> Who did TFG send his demands to?

TFG definitely sent in the same sort of requests. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru...

> When the White House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue to report: Famous model Chrissy Teigen had just called President Donald Trump “a pussy ass bitch” on Twitter — and the White House wanted the tweet to come down.

> That exchange — revealed during Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on Twitter by Rep. Gerry Connolly — and others like it are nowhere to be found in Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” releases, which have focused almost exclusively on requests from Democrats and the feds to the social media company.

> “It was strange to me when all of these investigations were announced because it was all about the exact same stuff that we had done [when Donald Trump was in office],” one former top aide to a senior Trump administration official tells Rolling Stone. “It was normal.”

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#88

Post by edgyquant »

Pxtl wrote: post #56
moduspol wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. They don't, they just choose to do so. It's the same way pundits, authors, and broadcasters often get labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" while similarly left-wing ones don't get labeled. It's an editorial choice to call the reader's attention to it and imply relevance. Beyond t…

The Trump administration lost any benefit of the doubt with their judicial appointments when they outraged the legal establishment (eg American Bar Association) by frequently ignoring the most qualified candidates for judicial appointments in favor of ideologically Republican ones.

Neither you or are the Bar Association have any right to tell the president who is most qualified for a role he appoints. Maybe you don’t like it or it’s “wrong,” but the Bar Association is a bunch bureaucrats not an arbiter of platonic truth or good.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#89

Post by hotpotamus »

viggity wrote: post #82

The Hunter Biden laptop story was actively suppressed on Twitter and Facebook specifically because the FBI told them it was Russian information, despite the fact that the FBI had verified it was legit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files

What do you think the FBI's goal was with that behavior?

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#90

Post by kayodelycaon »

RobotToaster wrote: post #48
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #39

Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.

It's a myth that it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

It's not illegal to yell "fire", but you can bet you're getting charged for manslaughter if someone dies as a result.

This isn't far fetched, many people have gotten crushed or trampled in a panic and died as a result.

Post reply on HN